China’s coming implosion.
So I went searching for data on the number of boys born versus numbers of girls, for my “obsession,” as some term it. It’s 105-106 boys for every 100 girls. These extra five or six boys are the gay ones. This I contend. No one else does, but it makes sense in an intuitive way. God would not put all us gay guys here just to deprive worthy ladies of their potential swains. We’re not, um, potent, in this regard. Even fits in with the numbers of us proposed but unsubstantiated. The reason that it’s not said by anyone else is that most demographers simply can’t comprehend that there’s natural born gay boys. I mean, if a demographer grew up in a fine Christian household, like Gary Gates of recent down to the very last gay guy gay-counting fame did, then it stands to reason that they come fully equipped with all the biases against gays that the larger society has. In quite extensive research I can’t find anyone who even proposes more than mush as to gay folks. It’s quite astounding. But the 106-100 boy-girl thing is never mentioned, though it stares one in the face.
Still, here’s the key paragraphs from http://www.economist.com/node/15636231
Oh, I’m sure there’s always someone to quibble on the source, go find your own, it doesn’t change:
“In January 2010 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) showed what can happen to a country when girl babies don’t count. Within ten years, the academy said, one in five young men would be unable to find a bride because of the dearth of young women—a figure unprecedented in a country at peace.
Boys are slightly more likely to die in infancy than girls. To compensate, more boys are born than girls so there will be equal numbers of young men and women at puberty. [Not true, but sounds good, eh? Indeed, most studies simply ignore the reality that it’s at the tail end of life, in the 50+ generation, that girls start to over take guys, skewing the results on younger cohorts.] In all societies that record births, between 103 and 106 boys are normally born for every 100 girls. The ratio has been so stable over time that it appears to be the natural order of things. [Just like the number of gays has “been so stable over time that it appears to be the natural order of things.” But it is odd that gay folks are never brought up in population figuring. For it’s not “natural.” Yeah, right. Meanwhile, no one proposes where all the unmarried girls are in societies that don’t mess with the birth rates.]
Ah, but China messes with the birth rates: “That order has changed fundamentally in the past 25 years. In China the sex ratio for the generation born between 1985 and 1989 was 108, already just outside the natural range. For the generation born in 2000-04, it was 124 (ie, 124 boys were born in those years for every 100 girls). According to CASS the ratio today is 123 boys per 100 girls. These rates are biologically impossible without human intervention.
“South Korea is experiencing some surprising consequences. The surplus of bachelors in a rich country has sucked in brides from abroad. In 2008, 11% of marriages were “mixed”, mostly between a Korean man and a foreign woman. This is causing tensions in a hitherto homogenous society, which is often hostile to the children of mixed marriages. [Probably treated like gay folks, simply scorned, but I’m cranky.] The trend is especially marked in rural areas, where the government thinks half the children of farm households will be mixed by 2020. The children are common enough to have produced a new word: “Kosians”, or Korean-Asians.
“For an example, take Guangdong, China’s most populous province. Its overall sex ratio is 120, which is very high. But if you take first births alone, the ratio is “only” 108. That is outside the bounds of normality but not by much. If you take just second children, however, which are permitted in the province, the ratio leaps to 146 boys for every 100 girls. And for the relatively few births where parents are permitted a third child, the sex ratio is 167. Even this startling ratio is not the outer limit. In Anhui province, among third children, there are 227 boys for every 100 girls, while in Beijing municipality (which also permits exceptions in rural areas), the sex ratio reaches a hard-to-credit 275. There are almost three baby boys for each baby girl.”
OK, so there’s the numbers from the Economist, a not inconsiderable publication.
Now the question is two fold. One, far more important to the USA as a whole – what does this imbalance portend for China? What it portends is societal disruption, for those boys are randy, and there’s no girls. And so crime, rape and violence, typical heterosexual attributes, has skyrocketed. Indeed, China is facing constant uprisings, and constant demonstrations. This cannot long stand. Something is going to happen there. Implosion from too many marauding male youth would seem to be the key to upcoming Chinese national collapse. Which has grave implications for our budget, for they won’t be buying our bonds. And it has grave implications for Asia, for out of the broken morass of China may well come a dozen new nations. It’ll be something to behold. I don’t think anyone is ready. And if we can’t take out a tinpot dictator like Khadafi in two or three weeks, we’re unprepared for everything, I’d dare say. And from the sounds of it, far more are worried about China taking us over than imploding. But, implosion it shall be. Oh well.
But the second is this – our “theorists” on gay issues here would contend that the outcome would be more gays. Indeed, wouldn’t it stand to reason? If there’s no girls, where do the boys get their jollies? Or their wives? It almost seems that the Family Research Council and their ilk would claim that this would lead to a massive rise in homosexuality. Indeed, they’re quite sure that gayness is a communist plot (see www.goodasyou.org for a video by some Christian dude, Sorba the Greek or someone, who says just that, just yesterday!)
And then here’s a communist country raising boys by the scads while destroying girls. Sounds gay friendly to me, (well, not really, no, nature is enough, we don’t need help.) For the boys got to do something. Nothing of the sort happens. And China keeps raiding gay bars, such as they can exist, and arresting everyone, just like the FRC seems to want to do here. Which is odd, for one is “conservative Right,” and the other is “conservative Left” and they both want to raid the gay bars. Doesn’t sound like much of a difference to me.
And meanwhile, up in Iowa, this nut job named Van Der Plaats is quite sure that he needs to start “teaching heterosexuality.” www.queerty.com and www.goodasyou.com have fine videos of the man just spewing nonsensical crud. “Teach heterosexuality”? I could have sworn all these guys say it’s natural! And we’re the “unnatural” ones. Except, well, not only do we need no lessons, or teaching, but we get a hefty dose of heterosexual teachings and ignore it all. All. And indeed, we’re condemned from the get go, but our desires are so strong, so immutable, so intrinsic, that we just override all the admonishments to go heterosexual. It’s beyond our capabilities. I know I couldn’t do it. Not even with a gun to my head. Not even to the point of a “I’ll have what she’s having” faking it. (see: “When Harry Met Sally” for the Hollywood unaware.)
And while it is true that heterosexuals need to teach their heterosexual sons to keep their doohickies in their pants so that we don’t have so many teen moms, and unwed moms, and so many divorces, kid beatings, wife poundings, kidnappings, murders, rapes, and Lord knows what – while we gay guys go quietly about our business being whom we are causing no ruckus other than to demand some modicum of acceptance and respect — you can’t “teach heterosexuality.” Nor “homosexuality.” You can only teach kids how do be more decent in the exercise thereof.
“Teach heterosexuality”? The idea is preposterous; why it’s the natural order of some 95% of the population, as. China has amply shown, and Korean, India, and the others from the Economist, that it’s so natural that even with a severe dearth of girls, straight guys will do anything to wind up with a girl, any girl I guess, at this point, for they can’t even be choosy. Or shift to violence and pillage. For it has “been so stable over time that it appears to be the natural order of things.” Indeed it is.
So you all keep arguing, let us know when you come to a conclusion, so we might get on with our lives and not have to fight so many idiots, as Father DeMattei exemplified just the other day (see my previous post) with his claim that Rome fell because gays were newly condemned by Christians in the last 100 years of the Roman Empire, which he neglected to mention on his tear against us. That he felt compelled to blame us for what he wanted – the complete collapse of Pagan Rome – and not give us thanks, is all the more astounding. The man is just not happy I guess.
For other more insightful ideas on the issue see: http://therotundaramblings.blogspot.com/2007/12/baby-boy-or-baby-girl.html
Meanwhile, watch for China to go under the knife, and come out wholly transformed. Don’t let all those skyscrapers fool you; that country is a basket case. Indeed, so long as our economy is OK, they do alright. But if we stop buying trinkets from them, because we have another recession or depression due to the price of oil, of which 11 of the last 12 recessions followed quickly rising prices, than they’re screwed. For they’ll have no income, but a lot of nice new and shiny factories and corporate headquarters, but no one to sell stuff too. And several millions of very horny and disaffected heteros who didn’t need no stinkin’ teachin’.
And then, boom, China goes kaflooey. Oh, it’ll be brutal. I wouldn’t want to be in Shanghai when the Chow Mein hits the fan.
- Posted in: Uncategorized